CIRCUIT:

APPLICABILITY OF RULING:

Since the holding in Hutcheson is based upon the meaning of the
term "stepchild" under applicable State law, this ruling applies only to
cases in which the child claimant resides in Alaska, California, Arizona,
Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii, Guam, or the Northern
Mariana Islands, with the operative State law being that of the domicile
of the insured wage earner.

This ruling applies to determinations or decisions at all administrative
levels (i.e., initial, reconsideration, administrative law judge hearing
and Appeals Council).

To the extent inconsistent therewith, this Ruling supersedes
SSR 66-11 in the Ninth
Circuit only. This ruling also revokes SSR 81-28c.

DESCRIPTION OF CASE(S):

Elwood Hutcheson, an insured individual entitled to old-age insurance
benefits under Section 202(a) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
Section 402(a), married Doris Hutcheson on June 5, 1970. In October 1972,
they separated. During the separation, on October 10, 1973, Doris gave
birth to a daughter, Sarah, in New Jersey, where Doris was living at the
time. On Sarah's birth certificate, one David Robinson is listed as the
father. Subsequent to Sarah's birth, on March 3, 1974, Doris and Sarah
returned to Elwood's home in Yakima, Washington, where they have lived
ever since. After he became entitled to benefits, Elwood legally adopted
Sarah on May 16, 1974.

Later Doris Hutcheson applied for Social Security benefits as a wife with
an entitled child in her care, and for child's benefits on behalf of
Sarah, based upon the earnings record of Elwood. Both applications were
denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA) since Sarah, who was
not the natural child of the wage earner (Elwood), was found not to meet
the dependency requirements of the Act and was determined not to be the
stepchild of the wage earner. Under Section 202(d)(8) of the Act, if the
insured individual (wage earner) adopts a child after he becomes entitled
to old-age insurance benefits, dependency requirements must be met unless
the child is the insured individual's natural child or stepchild. Under
the regulations, 20 C.F.R. 404.357, to qualify as a stepchild, the parent
of the child and the insured individual must have married after the child
was born. The claimants appealed to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington. The Secretary's decision was sustained
by the United States District Court. Doris appealed for herself and on
behalf of Sarah to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

HOLDINGS:

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court and noted that the Social
Security Act does not specifically define stepchild and there is no
general federal common law relating to family relationships. Since the
wage earner Elwood was living in the State of Washington, the court held
that Washington law was controlling. Washington law defines stepchild as a
"child of the petitioner's spouse who is not a child of the petitioner."
Wash. Rev. Code Section 26.32.200(3) (1971). Under this definition, Sarah
was held by the court to be Elwood's stepchild and therefore, entitled to
child's benefits on Elwood's earnings record. Since Sarah was eligible for
child's benefits, Doris was held to be eligible for wife's benefits
because she had Sarah in her care. 42 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(B).

STATEMENT AS TO HOW HUTCHESON DIFFERS FROM SOCIAL SECURITY
POLICY:

Although the term stepchild is not defined in the Social Security Act, as
provided in 20 C.F.R. 404.357,
SSR 66-11, and SSR
81-28c, the Act has been interpreted by SSA to mean that a person may be
eligible for child's benefits as the insured's stepchild only if the
child's natural or adopting parent marries the insured after the child's
birth.

The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
Hutcheson holds that, since the term stepchild is not specifically
defined in the Social Security Act, the definition of stepchild as
provided by State law is controlling.

EXPLANATION OF HOW SSA WILL APPLY THE DECISION WITHIN THE CIRCUIT:

This ruling applies only to cases in which the child resides in
California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, the
Northern Mariana Islands, Alaska, Hawaii, or Guam at the time of the
determination or decision at any level of administrative review, i.e.,
initial, reconsideration, administrative law judge hearing or Appeals
Council. SSA will apply the State law of the insured wage earner's
domicile at the time the application is filed, or, if the wage earner is
dead, the wage earner's domicile at the time of death.

When a case involves the issue of whether or not a person is a stepchild
of an insured individual for purposes of Section 202(d)(1) of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 402(d)(1), the definition of "stepchild" as
provided by State law rather than the Social Security regulation will be
controlling, consistent with the Hutcheson decision.